User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 16:54 UTC (Tue) by fray (guest, #5577)
Parent article: Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Just as an FYI. RPM5 is used in embedded systems as well. The Yocto Project's Poky and now OpenEmbedded-Core both use the RPM5 version and not the rpm.org version.

The reason for this is fairly simple. It's been very easy to deal with, resolve and fix:
* cross compilation problems
* system level configurations
* embedded patches

Jeff occasionally complains about what he terms as "have it your own way!" configuration as being difficult and someone problematic for him as a maintainer, however this has really provided RPM5 a huge advantage when used on embedded systems. It allows us to customize the behaviors and abilities of the rpm binaries based on our system constraints.

Also above and beyond everything else, we've had the ability to actually suggest and make changes to the way things work as we've found use-cases that simply don't exist on the traditional workstation and server environments.

(Note, I'm also the maintainer of the RPM functionality in OE-Core presently... and I share a similar attitude to Per √ėyvind Karlsen, I'm going to do what I think is better and what makes my job easier...)


(Log in to post comments)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 17:24 UTC (Tue) by xxiao (guest, #9631) [Link]

rpm on yocto as the default pkg tool just says Intel instead of LF is running that project. opkg worked well in OE all these years and rpm is known to be too fat for small systems, though it will be fine for ATOMs.

i recommend redhat to get rid of rpm for good and switch to debian format.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 17:47 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

I love the .deb package format, but the *source* packages are strange and difficult to deal with. My 2 cents.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 18:39 UTC (Tue) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]

That's interesting. I have difficulty seeing how you can come to this conclusion, but there are some things (the various different source formats) which no doubt contribute.

I find the situation totally the opposite: I find building RPMs from source counter-intuitive and the rpmbuild defaults seem all wrong.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 20:01 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I have little experience with actually making debs (I'm a package maintainer for Fedora), but I like the fact that the spec file and patches are separate from the tarball. Makes looking at Fedora's git for questions about some quirks of some package easy (e.g., "Why is this feature missing?" to "Oh, missing configure option"). AFAICS, to get this from dpkg sources, I'd need to download the tarball and extract it. If there's some other resource than http://packages.debian.org/, I'd be grateful for a link.

Agreed about rpmbuild. I just use mock when building SRPMs for the most part.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 20:34 UTC (Tue) by pkern (subscriber, #32883) [Link]

Nah, that's only the case for native packages (i.e. upstream maintained in Debian). In the normal case you've either got a .diff.gz against the tarball with the Debian changes (including debian/rules containing the configure bits) or, the newer variant, a .debian.tar.gz tarball.

But indeed the source format ties it together with the tarball instead of shipping the build instructions separately.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 17, 2011 20:54 UTC (Tue) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

IMHO one of the more annoying omissions in Debian policy for source packages is a build target for applying patches. Currently only "good" way find out what actually is patched for given architecture is to do a build and diff the resulting sources against original ones...

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 19, 2011 19:35 UTC (Thu) by oxan (guest, #75033) [Link]

In the new (3.0) format that problem is solved: there's a single directory, debian/patches, where all the patches are stored in a quilt-compatible format.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 21:26 UTC (Tue) by kaeso (subscriber, #49701) [Link]

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 21:49 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

That's what I've been looking for. Access to other distro patches is great for seeing what issues might be around with some package. Thanks!

<shameless-musing>Now if I only could find the OpenSuSE equivalent as well...no luck so far.</shameless-musing>

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 23:27 UTC (Tue) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link]

Well, for the next release, you have https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=openSUSE%...

From there, you can drive down into the packages, just picking something random, you have https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=perl-JSO... where you can see the spec file, changelog, source, and diffs.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 1:27 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]

A friend of mine wrote this website to search for packages on rpm-based distribution :
http://sophie.zarb.org/sources

That's a big postgresql db with all metadata on binary and sources rpms, and that include patch ( and patch contents most of the time ). But we didn't integrate opensuse source rpm for the moment, so this would not be useful for your usecase.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 14:51 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

That actually looks quite useful. I keep a bunch of search shortcuts around for poking in other distro packages to look for patches, missing build options, and other things. I was just never able to find anything for OpenSuSE nor the git repositories for Debian. Having a one-stop-shop for such things would be nice. Also, a website which aggregated what patches for a given package were floating around in different distributions would be great. A translation database between distro package names would likely be needed and version tables to compare current versions in different distributions would also be a useful tool. Most likely not an easy problem however with the different practices of each distribution.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 16:05 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]

Something like this : http://www.enricozini.org/2011/debian/distromatch-deploy/
( for matching package name )

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 12:48 UTC (Wed) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]

> but I like the fact that the spec file and patches are
> separate from the tarball. [...] AFAICS, to get this
> from dpkg sources, I'd need to download the tarball
> and extract it.

I guess you are confusing something. In RPM distros, the tarball and changes are all stuffed together in one giant .srpm, while in Debian, the upstream code and the packages are separated into two files.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 14:49 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I usually don't interact with SRPM files directly when finding out such things. I go to the Fedora git and poke around in there. Before, I hadn't found the Debian git web interface and as such had no easy access to what build commands/options were being used. It's still less than ideal (IMO) because it's an exploded tarball and everything is split into many files under debian/, but another search binding to go straight there is possible (debian-dir-only patches on patch-tracker seems to be what I want for the most part). I'll have to work on getting some of the changes for uzbl upstream (man pages, a bashism patch, a .desktop file, and some other things).

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 2:52 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

>I love the .deb package format

If you thought rpm's choice for cpio (over tar) was weird, just wait until you see that deb produces a sadistic .tar.gz.a matroshka.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 4, 2011 8:21 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

That's not a fair comparison.

A deb package is technically gluing of two tarballs: "control" and "data". This gluing is done using an ar archive as ar is a very light-weight archive that adds very little overhead. Here is the content of that archive for some random package:

$ ar tv $PACKAGE.deb
rw-r--r-- 0/0 4 Apr 17 06:55 2011 debian-binary
rw-r--r-- 0/0 1975 Apr 17 06:55 2011 control.tar.gz
rw-r--r-- 0/0 73363 Apr 17 06:55 2011 data.tar.gz

$ ar p $PACKAGE.deb control.tar.gz | tar tzf -
./
./control
./md5sums

$ ar p $PACKAGE.deb control.tar.gz | tar xOzf - ./control
Package: cdbs
Version: 0.4.93
Architecture: all
Maintainer: CDBS Hackers <build-common-hackers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Installed-Size: 376
Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.30)
Recommends: autotools-dev
Suggests: devscripts
Section: devel
Priority: optional
Description: common build system for Debian packages
This package contains the Common Debian Build System, an abstract build
system based on Makefile inheritance which is completely extensible and
overridable. In other words, CDBS provides a sane set of default rules
upon which packages can build; any or all rules may be overridden as
needed.

The rough equivalents of those in an rpm package is:

data.tar.gz is the cpio archive you mentioned. The metadata and the gluing in a deb package are done in a way that is at least accessible through standard shell tools. It was originally done with some custom dictionary and custom gluing as in RPM, but later on they preferred to use a more standard method.

I'm sure there are some merits to the rpm format. It's just that your criticism is wrong.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 5, 2011 17:18 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Using cpio (one standard format) instead of tar (each version has its own quirks) is sane...

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 6, 2011 1:10 UTC (Fri) by lindahl (guest, #15266) [Link]

CPIO is so standard that Fedora RPMs can't be unpacked on RHEL because CPIO changed.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 6, 2011 4:58 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

That has to do with the change of compression format. hint: rpmbuild-md5

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 20:09 UTC (Tue) by fray (guest, #5577) [Link]

There are three packaging tools supported. deb, ipkg and rpm. You are free to use one or more of them for your own projects. Bugs will be fixed for them as well.

Why does Yocto Project (and now OE-Core) require support for RPM? Specifically because there are large segments of commercial customers who specifically require rpm formatted packages in their designs.

(LSB also used to recommend RPM as the package format...)

There is no intention within the Yocto Project or OE to specify one format over another, only to ensure that RPM is on equal footing as to the other formats and not "ignored".

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 12, 2011 12:27 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

afaik the LSB says "RPM is the LSB standard". Within limits, that is.

An LSB file is a subset of RPM such that alien is guaranteed to work.

Cheers,
Wol

What *is* an rpm?

Posted May 3, 2011 19:07 UTC (Tue) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]

Perhaps one of the forks should change names, being that both projects are going in seemingly different directions.

And, no adding a number or -ng or whatever after "rpm" doesn't cut it.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds